Yep, that's the one. Apparently our planes land themselves because it's too dangerous to stay in the plane because it has to make a near vert dive to get to the ground and land on the runway before the jumpers do. Guess our pilots only get to fly one load before they are are seriously injured and have to be replaced.

- Katie, US, 25/5/2012 10:23 "You all clearly do NOT understand the physics at work here. Once in the plane, you MUST jump. The airplane makes a near vertical dive to land safely and get out of the way before the skydivers land on the SAME runway. It is not safe to stay in the plane. You would be seriously injured. He was not being cruel, he was trying to save her. Tandem divers are warned of this repeatedly, you are asked time and again if you are sure, because you can not ride back in the plane. They tell you they will literally shove you out the door to save your life. "

- Katie, US, 25/5/2012 10:51 "So it must be a 'drone' then? If it were 'not safe to stay in the plane', how come the pilot usually survives the trip? - Karen, UK, 25/5/2012 10:33 -------- The pilot is strapped in to ensure he does not suffer ill effects from the amount of G-forces pulled in order to get back to the ground, additionally many of the planes aren't equipped with more than enough fuel to go back and land, flying around for the 40+ minutes it would have required to wait for everyone else to land first likely wasn't an option. There is no other way to say this. No one else is allowed to ride back in the plane. This is a highly regulated industry. If you want to worry about something, worry about why the straps holding her in didn't' work. Shoving her out of a plane was a necessity."

Ya know, I've seen a lot of in air rigging being done before, but I'll be damn if I've ever seen anyone try in an air harnessing of a student act........

Now we can see why that never really took off as the "in thing" in student progressions.

Watched the vid several times last night just to exercise my W.T.F. muscle...

Several things came to mind ~ I'd love to know exactly what the TI was thinking when he released the drogue. Someone mentioned he was a low-timer regarding tandems, did he realize what was going on or did he just pull the drogue to stop the obvious instability.

That being said, he certainly had his hands full at that point...I haven't done any tandems in 15+ years -so not being current, I wonder if one of you pro meat slingers could break it down for me just out of curiosity~ Would one be better off trying to gear up the student while in free-fall as opposed to drogue fall?

From the pics I posted it seems like not only was the student harness too loose, but the rig is floating pretty high off his back making for no possibility of using his legs to try and control the student...in the vid he tried pushing down on her feet.

Seriously, wouldn't the odds be better trying to square the passenger away without the drogue?

Then I had an even scarier thought...again just curious WTF thought process was going on -

~gotta wonder if it crossed his mind that pushing down on her feet would keep the leg straps at the back of the knees and might keep her in the harness during deployment...but holding her like that would mean bettin' the ranch on the AAD.

Can't really tell WHAT he's thinking during all of this, but to me anyway it seemed that the situation was SO overwhelming that confusion became panic as ideas & altitude ran out, so he 'pulled & prayed'.

Sometimes ya get lucky, but IF as a professional you put yourself AND a civilian in a position that luck is all you have...walk away from the sport.

The final thought I had after several viewings, was more outrage than just disbelief...

I'd hate to think what I would have 'done' had this TI put a loved one of MINE through this ordeal because of stupidity & incompetence... probably something along the line of 20 to life.

t is not proven yet if the T-I was a USPA Rated T-I, it is still being hashed out, the few who say they "Know" say he was NOT a USPA T-I and not actually rated by the Manufacturer either. My point- I do not think USPA bears any blame in this incident.

As a former I/E made sure all my Candidates understood- Get on the plane ready to exit! Never rig in flight and never trap your student to you by doubling up on the seat belt.

from reading your comments over the last decade I understand that you are trying to make a difference - thx for the effort in your corner of the world. but what to do with all the other I/E's who take a (in?)differerent stance????

Seriously, wouldn't the odds be better trying to square the passenger away without the drogue?

As I said earlier in this thread just before the drogue goes out, it is very reminiscent of the fatality on the Strong Side Spin video. With the separation increasing the spin, I don't think there was much else he could do at that point.

Just found some photos about an 80-year-old lady named Geni from Munich who did her 100th tandem jump. This shows that 99,x% of all TIs are responsible folks who take good care of their students. Look at pic 21, you can see her harness is adjusted properly and she's wearing a proper jumpsuit. An even better example is the video of Granny Ida's 100th tandem jump at age 82. Proper harness adjustment and proper briefing and even exiting a 182 is doable without problems.

Just found some photos about an 80-year-old lady named Geni from Munich who did her 100th tandem jump. This shows that 99,x% of all TIs are responsible folks who take good care of their students. Look at pic 21, you can see her harness is adjusted properly and she's wearing a proper jumpsuit.

Hmm, from the pictures, that looks like a fairly tight, demo DZ. One could argue that isn't the best care.

In reply to:

An even better example is the video of Granny Ida's 100th tandem jump at age 82. Proper harness adjustment and proper briefing and even exiting a 182 is doable without problems.

Having a camera on a student's chest strap could hit them in the face on opening. Again, one could argue it's not the best practice.

It also demonstrates that different people have different standards on what is considered acceptable. From what is shown, neither of those would be allowed in the UK.

I also wonder if it would be better to take it a little low before deploying giving the woman a shorter time to have to hang on if she didnt fall out of the harness. I am not sure what thoughts were going through this "TI"'s mind, let's be honest that is one effed up situation to find yourself in.

I still am baffled how she stayed in on deployment, really the whole god damn even baffles me.

- Katie, US, 25/5/2012 10:23 "You all clearly do NOT understand the physics at work here. Once in the plane, you MUST jump. The airplane makes a near vertical dive to land safely and get out of the way before the skydivers land on the SAME runway. It is not safe to stay in the plane. You would be seriously injured. He was not being cruel, he was trying to save her. Tandem divers are warned of this repeatedly, you are asked time and again if you are sure, because you can not ride back in the plane. They tell you they will literally shove you out the door to save your life. "

- Katie, US, 25/5/2012 10:51 "So it must be a 'drone' then? If it were 'not safe to stay in the plane', how come the pilot usually survives the trip? - Karen, UK, 25/5/2012 10:33 -------- The pilot is strapped in to ensure he does not suffer ill effects from the amount of G-forces pulled in order to get back to the ground, additionally many of the planes aren't equipped with more than enough fuel to go back and land, flying around for the 40+ minutes it would have required to wait for everyone else to land first likely wasn't an option. There is no other way to say this. No one else is allowed to ride back in the plane. This is a highly regulated industry. If you want to worry about something, worry about why the straps holding her in didn't' work. Shoving her out of a plane was a necessity."

she was already out of the harness in the door. He had no choice but to throw the drogue, there was no fixing that with or without drogue.

to the person that made the comment about no jumpsuit....you are an idiot. the harness was no doubt too loose and the door position was wrong and the choice to leave was wrong, but that teal jacket saved her life. If it hadnt bunched up around her head then the lower back strap would not have hung around her neck, which was the only thing holding her upper body in.

After watching this video a couple times, and my father's (also a standing exit), it might well be that a takeaway is that when you're TM'ing someone who isn't all that flexible, maybe a sitting exit, rather than a poised one, is going to be easier and calmer for the student.

She looked ready and willing before getting to the door; she was way off balance in the door, and very possibly in some pain -- lots of older folks just don't bend that far any more.

I know that standing exits are faster and more comfortable for the TM (and those are not inconsequential -- you stand to lose some control in trying to get someone from standing to sitting position I daresay).

just for fun reading here are Katies comments on that article... _____________________________

Who the hell is this idiot?

My guess: someone close to the DZ or the former TI, in "survival mode" and trying to pacify the public by stacking lies on top of lies. And, in the process, she makes all of us look like even bigger jackasses.

I beg to differ, every waiver I have ever signed at my home DZ or while traveling has the "gross negligence" clause in it.

I limited my comment to California because I happen to know the rule about it here.

There was controversy about this issue that was clarified in California in Santa Barbara v. Superior Court (2007) 41 Cal.4th 747. But that court also stated:

Quote:

...the vast majority of out-of-state decisions hold that these agreements are void on the ground that public policy precludes enforcement of a release that would shelter aggravated misconduct. “The reasoning of the . . . out-of-state decisions . . . is based upon a public policy analysis that is different from the ‘public interest’ factors considered under Tunkl . . . . Tunkl's public interest analysis focuses upon the overall transaction--with special emphasis upon the importance of the underlying service or program, and the relative bargaining relationship of the parties--in order to determine whether an agreement releasing future liability for ordinary negligence is unenforceable. By contrast, the out-of-state cases . . . focus . . . upon the degree or extent of the misconduct at issue,” as well as on the aforementioned public policy against sheltering aggravated misconduct. (41 Cal.4th at 758.)

Look - in Cali, the general negligence waiver is pretty solid. The courts held in Hulsey v. Elsinore Parachute Center (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 333, that exculpatory contracts for participation in parachuting activities are not against public policy. This was ratified in Paralift, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 748.

But for five years now, it's been the rule in California that gross negligence cannot be waived. And the issues with the passengers laterals and her harness tell me that the waiver that passenger signed wouldn't allow anybody to get out of the case quickly.

And the issues with the passengers laterals and her harness tell me that the waiver that passenger signed wouldn't allow anybody to get out of the case quickly.

Loose laterals may cause a side spin but would never cause a passenger to slip out of the harness. In the video you can see the "instructor" fitting the harness to the customer and in the preloading scene, you see the back strap hanging loose. That was the major mistake. Second was forcing her out of the plane. Both should be actionable.

An old friend contacted me about it. After I told her the same stuff that's been said here (ill fitting harness, TM shouldn't have forced her out the door etc..) she added that she works for a reality show and they're planning to feature the video...

An old friend contacted me about it. After I told her the same stuff that's been said here (ill fitting harness, TM shouldn't have forced her out the door etc..) she added that she works for a reality show and they're planning to feature the video...